AuthorTopic: Michael's DNG comment (Read 60740 times)

Let me reply for Digitaldog, and not to be snappish or anything, but you don't know what you're talking about. His company exists in the same universe as the others.

Well...that wasn't snappish or anything. LOL

Essentially writing some scripts for Photoshop, has no comparison to what the camera manufacturers have to do with the hardware and software inside their cameras (computers). Timing and boundary conditions are very critical and space is limited (expanding will add to cost and change timing and, maybe, physical space, or heat, or....).

And that only talks to the technical considerations. Downstream are others. Also, financial considerations of a large complex corporation are (unfortunately) very different from a small business.

Being involved in small little operation like PixelGenius, gives you no idea of the cost to price considerations of a large worldwide operation such as Canon is.

Yes, PG is a very small operation. Point is, I do have some idea what it costs to pay an engineer and can thus imagine the scale Canon could spend. And you? The point was, a DNG switch is probably very small engineering in the grand scheme of all that huge engineering costs you surmise Canon spends system wide. You have no evidence that the lack of a DNG option is based on cost do you? If you do, we’d love to see the data.

Quote

Where do you have data that a significant number of customers want it or would be willing to pay more for DNG?

I don’t and never said I did. Where was the data that suggested photographers wanted JPEG instead of TIFF as an option? Do you know for a fact that the market wanted to ‘pay’ for a JPEG or that the manufacturers simply decided it was good for their customers? Do you know for a fact that providing some in-camera rendering to a JPEG versus a TIFF is a significant cost to and what percentage of our cost to buy that camera is affected by this functionality? If you have actual data, please share it.

Even if the cost to implement a DNG option were significant (and I don’t see any evidence it is), it would be a useful feature for customers. Do I have a metric of the number of people who buy a new camera and complain on multiple forums that their raw converter can’t handle that data? Nope. But I’ve heard this complaining for years all over the net. It isn’t a small number based on the number of complaints we hear every time a new camera comes out. Funny you don’t hear the same people complain that the same camera produces a JPEG because they can access that data the minute the camera ships. And that is the bottom line. The current behavior is such that every new camera that doesn’t provide an open raw format penalizes every customer that doesn’t process using the the raws with the manufacturers converter.

The pro DNG side is still waiting to hear how this isn’t a political issue while your side has yet to provide anything useful to counter this argument expect for some huge assumptions that the cost inhibits manufactures to do so (despite the fact several companies provide this option). We’ve heard some nonsensical arguments about how it would limit advancements when the facts are, nothing stops these manufacturers from continuing to develop their so called advanced technologies inside of or outside of DNG. Even if 10% of those capturing raw would turn the switch on for DNG, why argue against supporting that base? You really think that the cost to do so would add X dollars to the price of a camera? Really? Lets see some evidence of this please. Otherwise you guys are just arguing for a feature that has no downsides and again points to how political this all is and unfair to the customer.

Essentially writing some scripts for Photoshop, has no comparison to what the camera manufacturers have to do with the hardware and software inside their cameras (computers).

First off, yes, writing three plug-in’s for Photoshop isn’t anything like writing the software to drive a camera system. Second, we are not essentially writing scripts so before you end up saying anything further that shows your lack of understanding in this process, you should get your facts straight.

How does DNG make it possible for a 3rd party software to process the raw files from a brand new computer? (This is serious question)I assume that when a camera company introduces a new camera that any changes made to the company's raw files are necessary to support new features of the new camera. Image editing software then has to be modified to know what to do with the new information. If the company were to use DNG, they would have to make the same changes to the raw file and image editing software would still have to be modified, right? As I read the DNG specification a DNG reader can read the new data because the specification says what goes where but it there is not guarantee that the software knows what to do with the new data. What am I missing?

How does DNG make it possible for a 3rd party software to process the raw files from a brand new computer? (This is serious question)I assume that when a camera company introduces a new camera that any changes made to the company's raw files are necessary to support new features of the new camera. Image editing software then has to be modified to know what to do with the new information. If the company were to use DNG, they would have to make the same changes to the raw file and image editing software would still have to be modified, right? As I read the DNG specification a DNG reader can read the new data because the specification says what goes where but it there is not guarantee that the software knows what to do with the new data. What am I missing?

From my point of view you are asking the wrong question. The way I see it, the problem is one of global inefficiency. A new camera comes out and Adobe doesn't support it right away. They have to do some stuff (and others can probably speak to the 'stuff' better than I) in order to read the files in either LR or PS. Thus, Adobe spends money. The companies that use proprietary RAW files need to engage in software development of their own to produce a software platform that is duplicative (to some but not all) degree that Adobe does with PS and LR. Now just from the number of posts on this website, I think it's fair to say that there is a very large installed Adobe user base and very few use Nikon or Canon software for image processing (I used the Nikon product exactly twice when I bought my first DSLR some years ago and haven't used it ever again preferring LR/PS for database management and image processing. To me as a consumer, this means that I'm paying more for both Adobe products and Nikon products because of this duplication which is a waste of resources from my perspective. Now Leica and Pentax have adopted DNG and they work right out of the box with LR/PS (in fact Leica used to giver away LR with every camera they sold; don't know whether this is still the case) so they don't have to spend any money on this type of software development (I am discounting the argument that both companies are small relative to Canon/Nikon and it's just not economical for them to support this in house).

Will Adobe continue to support NEF and CR2 files forever and ever. Maybe or maybe not. Forever is a long time. Certainly for the foreseeable future they will and we will all pay extra for this. Since moving to an open standard improves this cost efficiency it's a no brainer.

I'll give you a concrete example: "as shot" white balance metadata. Nearly all vendors store this data in the same way. It is a set of 2 or 3 numbers which tells you what WB the camera picked for the capture (assuming you have WB in the camera set to Auto WB). The raw converter reads this piece of metadata so it can provide the same WB starting point when you load the picture. There is nothing secretive, special, inventive, or proprietary about this piece of metadata, since all vendors do it the same way.

The only question is where in the file this piece of metadata is stored. In the DNG format, there is a tag called AsShotNeutral that holds this information. Cameras that support DNG (e.g., from Casio, Leica, Pentax, and Ricoh) write the WB numbers into this tag. DNG reading software (whether from Adobe or other companies, including free software like dcraw) will simply look at this tag to find the values. So when a new camera that supports DNG hits the market, this software doesn't have to make any changes to read this metadata. It's done in a standardized way. It's like the mailman dropping off the mail in your mailbox, and you always know where to find your mail (in your mailbox!).

Now let's compare to non-DNG formats. In non-DNG formats, the location of this WB tag varies. Sometimes, a camera vendor will change the location from one model to the next. That means for ACR/Lr, I need to go digging into the file to figure out where they've changed the location. It's as if the mailman dropped by to deliver the mail, but each time he drops the mail off in a difference place next to your house. So you need to walk around your house each day to figure out where he's hidden the mail. Now, that may not seem like a lot of effort, but you multiply the extra few minutes by a lot of cameras, and the way it's done differently across vendors, and it adds up. And keep in mind that effort is spent doing something that is fairly photographically meaningless (finding the as shot WB) instead of doing something that is photographically meaningful -- namely, improving demosaic algorithms, adding new local adjustment tools, improving runtime performance, building new lens profiles, etc. In other words, time spent chasing tags in proprietary formats means time not spent doing things that will actually make photographs look better, improve workflows, speed up the app, fix bugs, etc.

The mailman metaphor is quite appropriate. The mailman just doesn't seem to care that you have to play hide and seek, or has anther service to help you find your mailbox. Canikon are just too complacent with their place in the market. But they are not alone in not working to their customer's benefit. Adobe can be like this too. For some reason you need to have two paid copies of photoshop if you have a PC and a Mac, but not if you have two Macs or the LR license that allows you to run either executable on one license. I don't see much difference between this attitude and camera manufacturers refusing to adopt a raw standard.

In the US, don't they throw the newspaper in the general direction of your front lawn? Or is that hollywood getting the better of me?

It depends, in some areas this is how it is delivered. In my hometown, you had a choice, you could pay for a newspaper box ( maybe $20) and the paper would be put into this box instead of being thrown into your yard. The mail boxes are all property of the US Postal service and I don't think that the newspaper can put your paper into your post box.

Eric was very careful not to mention how often exactly that happens, that suddenly different tag(s) were used to store WB multipliers...

Sometimes it is as frequent as every new model from a given vendor, or every few models.

The actual frequency isn't that important. The important point is that it does happen, which means I (and other raw software authors) need to check for it on every model. The only way to know whether it has changed is to test it, which takes time. In contrast, we never have to check it for DNG images, since it's done consistently.

Regardless of how one feels about DNG, I think we can agree that it would be better for photography as a whole if raw software authors could spend more time developing algorithms that make images look better, improving workflows, and speeding up performance, instead of chasing WB metadata tags and other similar things.

Sometimes it is as frequent as every new model from a given vendor, or every few models.

The actual frequency isn't that important. The important point is that it does happen, which means I (and other raw software authors) need to check for it on every model. The only way to know whether it has changed is to test it, which takes time. In contrast, we never have to check it for DNG images, since it's done consistently.

Regardless of how one feels about DNG, I think we can agree that it would be better for photography as a whole if raw software authors could spend more time developing algorithms that make images look better, improving workflows, and speeding up performance, instead of chasing WB metadata tags and other similar things.

You know, I hope, I have the greatest respect for you and am awed with your knowledge and execution.

I fully understand the benefit DNG would have for the raw software developers.

What evidence do we have that it would aid the camera manufacturers, particularly Nikon and Canon?

I assume each of the manufacturers have a pretty hefty investment in the code they are using and pretty sophisticated tools to assist in creating it. Changing these would probably be a major development cost and time hit, and effect product cycles.

In addition, if today's camera firmware is similar to PC firmware of the past, it is pretty tight, time dependent code. Any inefficiencies caused by standards different from what they are using could cause significant Cost increases due to spec changes or the reduction in function.

Someone in an early post suggested offering both the native raw ( NEF, CR2) and DNG as "switchable" options. I am not sure how that would work....at all...as I assume the raw file is always created, the post processed in camera to jpeg, irrespective of which is saved...or if both are.

I must admit, that my assumptions above could all be wrong as I never personal worked on the coding. However, 20 years of managing he product processes of the PC and PC servers gives you ample time to "rub shoulders" with the hardware and software engineers who do and the test people who need to catch the problems....and deal with the reasons for product delays or trouble shooting critical situations.

Anyway, it is human nature for our concerns to be "all about us". I just think that before we come down on the other guy (in this case the camera manufacturers) for not agreeing with our argument or desire, it helps to understand his side and why he is no jumping on your bandwagon.

What evidence do we have that it would aid the camera manufacturers, particularly Nikon and Canon?

It's already helped the camera companies that HAVE adopted DNG...but even if Nikon & Canon don't see any benefit, this whole argument by somebody I presume is a photographer (you) arguing on behalf of the camera companies is again, one of the roots of the problem. Why the hell would you care what's "good" for Nikon and Canon. Do you have stock in the companies? Even if adopting raw standards might not be optimal for Nikon and Canon, don't you think the benefits of the many outweigh the benefits of the few?

Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?

Undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are not good for the photo industry in general–on that, can we all agree?

+1 and also +1 to Eric for being candid. It confirms the point that I raised the other day that lots of resources are being wasted in an unnecessary manner. I wonder how many of these skeptics use their camera manufacturer's RAW processing software? Not many I bet!